Display posts from previous

Sort by

I've played many hours of freelancer (hundreds at least) over the years and I've not once ever played the storyline/single player. I've always fired up a MP server and connected to it and just played it as a sandbox.

I've played many hours of freelancer (hundreds at least) over the years and I've not once ever played the storyline/single player. I've always fired up a MP server and connected to it and just played it as a sandbox.

I can understand that what you do/did is a valid approach to playing Freelancer, TGS, but by your actions, you missed what I consider to be the heart of Freelancer. It's easy enough nowadays to go to a place like YouTube and see all the storyline content condensed into a very watchable movie (and that can be said for many RPG's that make use of cutscenes). The truth is I found the story compelling due to a fondness I developed for the characters. My only regret is that there was no further DLC to advance the storyline. Freelancer vanilla went a bit flat after the storyline ended.

I may well be disappointed by the approach that Josh takes to gameplay in Limit Theory due to the lack of such a storyline. I am probably more of an RPG gamer than a sandbox player. I do know LT will be beautiful in the art department and I've already enjoyed the Freelancer-like flight model. Hopefully the plans Josh has for gameplay will make up for the lost parts of Freelancer.

I've played many hours of freelancer (hundreds at least) over the years and I've not once ever played the storyline/single player. I've always fired up a MP server and connected to it and just played it as a sandbox.

I can understand that what you do/did is a valid approach to playing Freelancer, TGS, but by your actions, you missed what I consider to be the heart of Freelancer. It's easy enough nowadays to go to a place like YouTube and see all the storyline content condensed into a very watchable movie (and that can be said for many RPG's that make use of cutscenes). The truth is I found the story compelling due to a fondness I developed for the characters. My only regret is that there was no further DLC to advance the storyline. Freelancer vanilla went a bit flat after the storyline ended.

I may well be disappointed by the approach that Josh takes to gameplay in Limit Theory due to the lack of such a storyline. I am probably more of an RPG gamer than a sandbox player. I do know LT will be beautiful in the art department and I've already enjoyed the Freelancer-like flight model. Hopefully the plans Josh has for gameplay will make up for the lost parts of Freelancer.

I've never been much of a play by the script kind of guy though. I hate games that force me to jump through the hoops of a script to progress in the game. So if I can I just eliminate the script entirely. The GTA series was a good compromise in that in that it would block off sections until you completed relevant storylines but otherwise you were allowed to freely go about your business. Eventually the storyline was quite fun but sometimes I just want to jump into a sandbox and be able to do what I want.

I've never been much of a play by the script kind of guy though. I hate games that force me to jump through the hoops of a script to progress in the game. So if I can I just eliminate the script entirely. The GTA series was a good compromise in that in that it would block off sections until you completed relevant storylines but otherwise you were allowed to freely go about your business. Eventually the storyline was quite fun but sometimes I just want to jump into a sandbox and be able to do what I want.

Yes, some storyline elements do have disadvantages, TGS.

As part of the Freelancer storyline you are forced, by a particularly obnoxious character, to compete in a race to gain necessary information. IMO this was a spurious add-in. I've never been interested in that sort of game and really felt like punching this character's lights out, as well as the developer who came up with the idea...but that wasn't an option for either case.

I was particularly un-thrilled to find that racing formed part of Star Citizen ( perhaps it was an idea from CR) but fortunately it's not a compulsory element. *sigh of relief*

I've never been much of a play by the script kind of guy though. I hate games that force me to jump through the hoops of a script to progress in the game. So if I can I just eliminate the script entirely. The GTA series was a good compromise in that in that it would block off sections until you completed relevant storylines but otherwise you were allowed to freely go about your business. Eventually the storyline was quite fun but sometimes I just want to jump into a sandbox and be able to do what I want.

Yes, some storyline elements do have disadvantages, TGS.

As part of the Freelancer storyline you are forced, by a particularly obnoxious character, to compete in a race to gain necessary information. IMO this was a spurious add-in. I've never been interested in that sort of game and really felt like punching this character's lights out, as well as the developer who came up with the idea...but that wasn't an option for either case.

I was particularly un-thrilled to find that racing formed part of Star Citizen ( perhaps it was an idea from CR) but fortunately it's not a compulsory element. *sigh of relief*

Well the beauty of Star Citizen is the same intended beauty of Freelancer and that is... freedom. Freedom to do what you want. To follow a storyline, or not. To partake in certain activities, or not. With Freelancer's storyline it was hard because it was a linear storyline. I suspect much of the same in SQ42 (The single player campaign of SC) but you could literally skip that entirely if you wanted.

I'm all about freedom of choice. Feel free to put it all in there, but make it optional. It is when things are no longer optional that I tend to have a problem with it. Especially in the context of forced 'tutorial' concepts, missions and content. That drives me mental. Though I will absolutely play the crap out of SQ42 when it comes out. Just the ability to walk around the Stanton (Idris) will be amazing I reckon.

Well the beauty of Star Citizen is the same intended beauty of Freelancer and that is... freedom. Freedom to do what you want. To follow a storyline, or not. To partake in certain activities, or not. With Freelancer's storyline it was hard because it was a linear storyline. I suspect much of the same in SQ42 (The single player campaign of SC) but you could literally skip that entirely if you wanted.

I'm all about freedom of choice. Feel free to put it all in there, but make it optional. It is when things are no longer optional that I tend to have a problem with it. Especially in the context of forced 'tutorial' concepts, missions and content. That drives me mental. Though I will absolutely play the crap out of SQ42 when it comes out. Just the ability to walk around the Stanton (Idris) will be amazing I reckon.

Did you read Chris Roberts' Death of a Spaceman in which he basically said, "I'm making the game I want, and my game has permadeath"?

To my mind, that increased risk, which Roberts made very clear is NOT optional, decreases freedom. To avoid loss, people will play it safe. They'll do what they're told to do.

Well the beauty of Star Citizen is the same intended beauty of Freelancer and that is... freedom. Freedom to do what you want. To follow a storyline, or not. To partake in certain activities, or not. With Freelancer's storyline it was hard because it was a linear storyline. I suspect much of the same in SQ42 (The single player campaign of SC) but you could literally skip that entirely if you wanted.

I'm all about freedom of choice. Feel free to put it all in there, but make it optional. It is when things are no longer optional that I tend to have a problem with it. Especially in the context of forced 'tutorial' concepts, missions and content. That drives me mental. Though I will absolutely play the crap out of SQ42 when it comes out. Just the ability to walk around the Stanton (Idris) will be amazing I reckon.

I certainly won't be disagreeing with what you have to say here, TGS. I'm very much looking forward to SQ42 and the fact that the storyline will continue to be added to after its release. I'm also going to enjoy my exploration of the online universe.

Did you read Chris Roberts' Death of a Spaceman in which he basically said, "I'm making the game I want, and my game has permadeath"?

To my mind, that increased risk, which Roberts made very clear is NOT optional, decreases freedom. To avoid loss, people will play it safe. They'll do what they're told to do.

What do you think?

I'm not sure if you're interested in my opinion, Flat, as you addressed your question to TGS. But if you are interested in what I think of what Chris had to say in his article entitled Death of a Spaceman, I'm happy with its content. He laid out his case for permadeath in such a way as to satisfy me. I'll probably play it safe anyway in the online game. If I want to get into all guns blazing action, I won't be doing it in a ship that is an easy target. I don't intend doing much dying in the game.

Well the beauty of Star Citizen is the same intended beauty of Freelancer and that is... freedom. Freedom to do what you want. To follow a storyline, or not. To partake in certain activities, or not. With Freelancer's storyline it was hard because it was a linear storyline. I suspect much of the same in SQ42 (The single player campaign of SC) but you could literally skip that entirely if you wanted.

I'm all about freedom of choice. Feel free to put it all in there, but make it optional. It is when things are no longer optional that I tend to have a problem with it. Especially in the context of forced 'tutorial' concepts, missions and content. That drives me mental. Though I will absolutely play the crap out of SQ42 when it comes out. Just the ability to walk around the Stanton (Idris) will be amazing I reckon.

Did you read Chris Roberts' Death of a Spaceman in which he basically said, "I'm making the game I want, and my game has permadeath"?

To my mind, that increased risk, which Roberts made very clear is NOT optional, decreases freedom. To avoid loss, people will play it safe. They'll do what they're told to do.

What do you think?

While I respect your view and even appreciate it to a degree, that is a matter of perspective. Where you might see it as reducing freedom I see it as offering choice. Meaningful choice. By adding weight to the decisions you make. Sure you might choose to play it safe, but you've made that choice. You have the freedom to do so. It is when you don't have that choice that you are not really free.

While you could argue that you have more freedom without that risk, do you? What can you not do if you do not have the risk of death? The answer as I see it is... nothing. You can still do everything even if death has no consequence. The addition of choice is never a reduction in freedom, even if that choice appears to limit you. As long as it is a choice, you are still just as free as you were before. The only thing limiting your freedom then is... you. You choose to play it safe? You might be somewhat limited in what you can do and where you can go. But you've still made the choice.

I'm funny in that respect as I do not like roguelikes, I do not like building up and potentially losing it all to a mistake. I have ragequitted EVE a couple times over the years because I lost a lot of stuff and UO once because I lost a lot of stuff. It was never because my freedom was reduced though. I made mistakes or I got caught with my proverbial pants down. But I still had the choice, I could have done something different, taken a different route requested help moving stuff.

I repeat addition of choice is never a reduction in freedom. Ever. Playing it safe to avoid dying might have reduced freedom, but you still made a choice that you didn't have to make. You could have lived dangerously and had all the freedom in the world. Sure you take on more risk, but flipping it around where death is a non-issue and doesn't affect you negatively at all isn't magically giving you more play area or more things to do. It's simply taking away the need to make that particular 'tough' choice.

While I respect your view and even appreciate it to a degree, that is a matter of perspective. Where you might see it as reducing freedom I see it as offering choice. Meaningful choice. By adding weight to the decisions you make. Sure you might choose to play it safe, but you've made that choice. You have the freedom to do so. It is when you don't have that choice that you are not really free.

While you could argue that you have more freedom without that risk, do you? What can you not do if you do not have the risk of death? The answer as I see it is... nothing. You can still do everything even if death has no consequence. The addition of choice is never a reduction in freedom, even if that choice appears to limit you. As long as it is a choice, you are still just as free as you were before. The only thing limiting your freedom then is... you. You choose to play it safe? You might be somewhat limited in what you can do and where you can go. But you've still made the choice.

While I respect your view and even appreciate it to a degree, that is a matter of perspective. Where you might see it as reducing freedom I see it as offering choice. Meaningful choice. By adding weight to the decisions you make. Sure you might choose to play it safe, but you've made that choice. You have the freedom to do so. It is when you don't have that choice that you are not really free.

While you could argue that you have more freedom without that risk, do you? What can you not do if you do not have the risk of death? The answer as I see it is... nothing. You can still do everything even if death has no consequence. The addition of choice is never a reduction in freedom, even if that choice appears to limit you. As long as it is a choice, you are still just as free as you were before. The only thing limiting your freedom then is... you. You choose to play it safe? You might be somewhat limited in what you can do and where you can go. But you've still made the choice.

They could. In fact that's not a bad idea. Unfortunately I think due to the MMO nature of the game if it was a choice, no one would ever choose permadeath. People choose it in other games all the time, but they wouldn't likely do so in an MMO. Especially one with very expensive assets like in SC.

They could. In fact that's not a bad idea. Unfortunately I think due to the MMO nature of the game if it was a choice, no one would ever choose permadeath. People choose it in other games all the time, but they wouldn't likely do so in an MMO. Especially one with very expensive assets like in SC.

from what i remember from the "death of a spaceman" stuff is that the perma-killable characters are mostly "skins" which accrue bragging value the longer they last and the more scarred they get.

as assets directly go to your "successor" character when your current one dies.
(plus minus monetary penalty and partial standing neutralisation)

I'll add that I've seen far harsher implementations of permadeath than what Roberts described. He does at least propose some safety mechanisms before it's game over for a character in the MP part of his game.

I'll even further add that there might be some justification for permadeath in a multiplayer game. Low risk of penalty for being a jerk to other people could produce more jerkish behavior; increasing that penalty, even mildly, may help keep the social fabric a bit less frayed.

But these things said, forced permadeath in a single-player game (that can and should be playable offline) does seem like an unnecessary imposition of less freedom to me.

I don't know if this applies to the Squadron 42 segment of Star Citizen. It certainly didn't in Freelancer -- you just reload and keep playing, and I don't recall that shattering my feeling of immersion in the world of that game. It was just a useful moment of learning: "OK, note to self, don't try that tactic in that situation again." That's part of the fun of exploring gameplay systems that you don't get when the developer decides to tell you how you should play.

Anyway, I know opinions can vary on this. I was interested to hear what others (always including you, Victor) thought. Merci!

They could. In fact that's not a bad idea. Unfortunately I think due to the MMO nature of the game if it was a choice, no one would ever choose permadeath. People choose it in other games all the time, but they wouldn't likely do so in an MMO. Especially one with very expensive assets like in SC.

from what i remember from the "death of a spaceman" stuff is that the perma-killable characters are mostly "skins" which accrue bragging value the longer they last and the more scarred they get.

as assets directly go to your "successor" character when your current one dies.
(plus minus monetary penalty and partial standing neutralisation)

And apparently there's a death tax. So dying WILL cost you. Though the details haven't really been revealed on it.

I'll add that I've seen far harsher implementations of permadeath than what Roberts described. He does at least propose some safety mechanisms before it's game over for a character in the MP part of his game.

I'll even further add that there might be some justification for permadeath in a multiplayer game. Low risk of penalty for being a jerk to other people could produce more jerkish behavior; increasing that penalty, even mildly, may help keep the social fabric a bit less frayed.

But these things said, forced permadeath in a single-player game (that can and should be playable offline) does seem like an unnecessary imposition of less freedom to me.

I don't know if this applies to the Squadron 42 segment of Star Citizen. It certainly didn't in Freelancer -- you just reload and keep playing, and I don't recall that shattering my feeling of immersion in the world of that game. It was just a useful moment of learning: "OK, note to self, don't try that tactic in that situation again." That's part of the fun of exploring gameplay systems that you don't get when the developer decides to tell you how you should play.

Anyway, I know opinions can vary on this. I was interested to hear what others (always including you, Victor) thought. Merci!

SQ42 simply cannot work with permadeath. On any level. It just wouldn't make sense. I mean what are they gonna do? Lock you out of the game if you die? Maybe force you to make a new 'character'? Though you could literally make the exact same character with the same name and everything? If progress in the game is denoted by the linear storyline then it might kick you back to the beginning, though that would just be annoying and not much else. There isn't really any other form of progress that I know of in SQ42 it isn't like you're going to be collecting money or trinkets or anything like that to my knowledge, so the point behind permadeath isn't there.

Even in the broader SC the permadeath is more a narrative based thing than anything else. As well as a financial penalty for failure. Anything beyond that would break the entire foundation of the project by allowing people to lose their pledges even though they might have spent hundreds or thousands on them and supposedly they have lifetime insurance. If they said after the fact "Oh that was the lifetime of your character not you in real life" the backlash would be... insane.